The neurocognitive performance of drug‐free and medicated euthymic bipolar patients do not differ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although it is established that euthymic bipolar patients have neurocognitive deficits, the influence of medication on their cognitive performance is uncertain and requires investigation. METHOD: Neuropsychological tests of executive function, memory and attention were performed on 44 prospectively verified, euthymic bipolar I patients, 22 of whom were drug-free. Residual mood symptom effects were controlled statistically using ancova. RESULTS: Drug-free and medicated patients differed only in delayed verbal recall (Rey AVLT list A7, drug-free > medicated), and perseverations during the five-point test (drug-free > medicated). When residual mood symptoms were controlled statistically, differences between drug-free and medicated subjects became insignificant. Medication effect sizes were modest. Significant correlations were found between residual depression scores and measures of verbal learning. CONCLUSION: Medications did not have any significant influence on neurocognitive performance, suggesting that neurocognitive deficits are an integral part of bipolar disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".